MEER SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 22.1.2010, wherein respondent No.2 answered the reference against the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner- Meer Singh was appointed as Pump Operator with respondent No. 2 on 1.8.1987. He worked as such in the department continuously till 1.1.1989, when his services were allegedly terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). It is pleaded that at the time of termination of services of the petitioner, he was drawing Rs. 615/- per month. Aggrieved against his termination, he raised a demand notice. The dispute was referred to respondent No.2 for adjudication. Respondent No.2 vide his award dated 22.1.2010 answered the reference against the petitioner. It is this award which is now impugned before this court by the petitioner workman.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked with the respondent department and had completed 240 days in a calendar year. His services were illegally terminated by the respondent department without issuing any notice or giving retrenchment compensation. The delay in serving the demand notice is no ground to decline reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages to the petitioner. There is no period prescribed under the Act as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.